New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Lurking Libertarian]

1101?

[VadeRetro]

What if Adam's eyes were detecting the slower, less-energetic cosmic rays?

If you redshift the spectrum of light we're bathed in now by a factor of, say, 11 million, the solar peak our eyes are tuned to now disappears. There's not enough energy way up there for Adam to see anything with.

[VadeRetro]

What if Adam's eyes were detecting the slower, less-energetic cosmic rays?

Also, I think you mean "longer, less-energetic gamma rays." Cosmic rays are actually massive particles, not photons. All photons have the same speed, the energy difference being in the wavelengths.

[DittoJed2]

You have laid out a hypothesis using terms such as "imagine" and "there may exist." This is a hypothesis. This is not proof it happened.Cause isn't necessary in any case. There are demonstrably uncaused events in the universe as it exists today. But the real point is that philosophically, the very idea of causality is subordinate to the notions of space and time, which are physical things that themselves are subordinate to the Big Bang. Demanding that the Big Bang have a cause puts the cart way before the horse.
Cause most certainly is necessary. You do not observe things that just were. Things have beginning. Demanding to know the cause of the big bang demands the evolutionist to put his money where his mouth is. You are expecting us to buy a whole load of causes, but demanding that we reject reason when causation gets to the original point. Your theory is in the beginning was the big bang which caused time. It also caused molten matter. Which caused life. Which caused infinately complex creatures such as man with infinately complex parts such as eyeballs. Excuse if I am a bit incredulous. Nobody observed the big bang. Nobody has observed macroevolution. You have variations within species but all of the same kind. You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat. Over a 140 years after Darwin and a zillion scientists with a ton of funding later, the best science can come up with are a handful of disputed examples of transitional species. You never see something replicating out of its kind (horse to cat, plant to animal). You only have what Creationists acknowledge- microevolution (variation within species or kind) not macroevolution (huge change of kind to kind).

[VadeRetro]

I got to try a few Indian dishes between the time some Indian restaurants appeared in Herndon, VA and my move out from there to West Virginia. (There are no Indian restaurants near where I live now, unfortunately.)

Yeah, I think I had Tandoori chicken. Basically, everything I tried was very good.

[VadeRetro]

... attacks by the mole people, etc.

You take Pat Boone along so he can fight the mole people. At least, from somewhere I remember something like that.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

Panda Bears
Circular reasoning
more assumptions
Have a nice evening

[Aric2000]

Never said it was, but god seemed to have set up a very stringent set of laws and let the universe do it's thing.

The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, being one.

[Aric2000]

Got that right!! LOL

[jennyp]

Also, I think you mean "longer, less-energetic gamma rays." Cosmic rays are actually massive particles, not photons. All photons have the same speed, the energy difference being in the wavelengths.

Oh, yeah. That's right.

[goodseedhomeschool (returned)]

God did indeed set up a great universe capable of reproduction and all things working together.

[cmsgop]

New Dinosaur Species Found in India

A+Bert ?

[jennyp]

Your theory is in the beginning was the big bang which caused time. It also caused molten matter. Which caused life. Which caused infinately complex creatures such as man with infinately complex parts such as eyeballs. Excuse if I am a bit incredulous.

I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!

[longshadow]

G decreases at a linear rate as you approach the center of the Earth if it was a uniform density.

Assume you meant "g" not "G."

The Gravitational constant "G" is constant.

The gravitation acceleration "g" varies with mass.....

[VadeRetro]

Good point!

(Did I mention Woodmorappe spelled "faunal" as "faunel?")

[jennyp]

Nobody has observed macroevolution. You have variations within species but all of the same kind. You don't have a plant turning into an animal or a horse turning into a kitty cat.

Hey, guess what? I agree with you! I, an evolutionist, don't believe an animal has ever turned into a plant (or vice-versa), nor has an animal ever turned into a different kind of animal.

The transitions from one kingdom or family or genus to another took many, many, many, many generations to happen. And I'll bet even transitions from one species to another happened over much more than a single generation.

[Right Wing Professor]

Haikus suck
Real poems scan and rhyme
Multiculti losers begone!

[Right Wing Professor]

Every one of those.

I'm impressed. Never done that without the benefit of hallucinogens.

[AndrewC]

Never done that without the benefit of hallucinogens.

Interesting confession.

[DittoJed2]

I see: So any theory about who invented baseball must also explain how the universe got started!

I don't follow what you are saying here. What I am saying is that evolutionists since Lyell (and actually Hutton) have claimed the earth to be old. They have claimed that dinosaurs are some of the oldest species on earth and went extinct millions of years ago. They have claimed no man has seen a dinosaur. They don't say "it is probable that no man has seen this" or "it is probable that dinosaurs lived X amount of years ago." Rather, they state it as fact. Lyell was known to have fudged his dates. One example is Niagara Fall's gorge. Lyell asked a local about the rate of erosion but what the local said would have created a much younger earth. So, he made up his own date. Lyell's assumption is what got published. Fossil layers are dated by the ages of the fossils in them and visa versa (never mind the circular reasoning). If these fossils are proved to be much younger and could even be the fossil of a species that died a few years ago, the geological column is messed up. Men assumed an old age. C14 dating can not confirm an old age because after less than 40,000 years it isn't measurable. Helium confirms a young age. K Ar data doesn't work on samples of known age and yet we are told it works on older samples. All of this science is based upon assumptions that certain men's theories of an old age are correct. If living dinosaurs and fossils of dinosaurs with blood cells in them (which is a possibility) are true, it suggests that dinosaurs are younger than imagined (it doesn't prove it and hypothetically I guess you could have 200 million year old species living on earth, though it is doubtful) and all of the scientists assumptions are wrong. It also means that the millions of years needed for macroevolution to even theoretically occur are missing.

Of course, all of this doesn't matter for those who are so committed to the theory. Living dinosaurs just ilicit responses such as "wow, isn't it neat that this dinosaur survived 70 million years!"